louisa sorrentino

Modelling the Return of Sydney's Trams

Louisa Sorrentino

Veitch Lister Consulting

Before the mid-twentieth century, trams dominated!

• NSW: Sydney, Newcastle

• QLD: Brisbane, Rockhampton

Before the mid-twentieth century, trams dominated!

Before the mid-twentieth century, trams dominated!

• VIC: Melbourne, Geelong

Before the mid-twentieth century, trams dominated!

• SA: Adelaide

The Fall of the Trams

• Private vehicles and buses rapidly became popular in the mid-twentieth century

• Trams seen as archaic and taking up road space

• Most networks were decommissioned or downgraded to tourist routes

Australian Trams Today

• Public transport falling back in favour

• Light rail has recently been introduced / upgraded in:

• Sydney

• Gold Coast

• Adelaide

• Melbourne

• Cities considering light rail systems include:

• ACT

• Perth

• Hobart

Sydney’s Tram Revival

• Sydney was once one of the largest tram networks in the world

• The city has now:

• Extended the Inner West Light Rail network from the CBD to Dulwich Hill

• Announced the $1.6 billion CBD and South East Light Rail Project

With this in mind:

What patronage would a re-activated Sydney tram network achieve today?

Zenith Travel Models

• The Zenith Sydney model is a traditional four-step, strategic model

• It incorporates:

• All existing major roadways

• All existing public transport modes: bus, rail, ferry, monorail and light rail

• Over 4,500 travel zones spanning Sydney, Wollongong, the Blue Mountains, Newcastle, and the Hunter Valley

Building the Tram Model

Sydney’s tram network of 1947 was encoded into a 2011 Sydney model, as seen on the left

Sydney Trams - 1947

1947 Sydney Tram Network Statistics

• Approx. 230 km of track

• Over 55 individual routes

Sydney Trams - 1947

2011 Melbourne Tram Network StatisticsMelbourne Trams –

2011

• Approx. 250km of track

• 30 individual routes

Tram Network Assumptions

Adopted a conservative approach:

• Perception and accessibility made equal to buses• Services of large tram corridors (i.e. for Broadway, the

Harbour Bridge, Oxford St) capped to the levels of Swanston St, Melbourne

• Dedicated tram lanes only on these heavily trafficked corridors

• This translated to max. 15 min headways for all routes (all day)

• Adopt bus fare system for trams• Deletion of mirrored bus routes

Initial Model Results

• Trams aren't doing much to relieve patronage levels on buses and trains (8% share of boardings)

• Buses impacted most – competes more with trams

• Rail largely unaffected – services a vastly different market catchment

• Total public transport boardings largely unaffected – negligible shift from cars

Sensitivity Tests

• Improve perception and accessibility parameters for tram

• Reduce competition between trams and buses

• Double service frequencies (reduce max. headway from 15mins to 7.5mins)

Sensitivity Test Results – Improved Perception / Accessibility

• Tram boardings triple

• Balancing out of the bus and rail boardings share

• Big shift away from rail – trams now at same level of attractiveness

• However such favourable parameters may be unrealistic

Sensitivity Test Results

• 30% increase in tram boardings over initial runs

• Bus boardings decrease sharply – many routes deleted as part of test

• Some previous bus users switching to train rather than trams

Sensitivity Test Results

• 40% increase in tram boardings over initial run

• Biggest shift away from buses

• Impractically high capacities required to service this level of tram frequency

Key Messages from Sensitivity Testing

• Perception / accessibility, good service levels and reduced competition for patronage all increase tram patronage

• These may have all occurred to some extent, had the trams been retained

• Replacing one public transport mode with another providing similar coverage, requires significant improvement in overall service levels for any tangible relief / switching to occur from other modes

Limitations

• The model can account for transport-related benefits (i.e. travel time savings), but can’t capture amenity benefits

• Also limited by our assumptions. To improve modelling outcomes, we could:• Downgrade road capacities where on-road trams exist

• Develop land use scenarios that account for population and employment growth along tram corridors

• On guidance from planning authorities, implement service levels, fares, travel time and stop locations for trams

• Rigorous review of competing / complementing bus routes

• Perform stated preference surveys to calibrate accessibility / perception parameters

Conclusions

• Sydney has changed significantly since the trams were decommissioned, and transport planning has occurred in their absence

• Tram network offers no new accessibility on top of existing services, and therefore provides little congestion relief with initial conservative assumptions

• Sensitivity tests showed improved perception, frequencies and competition with other public transport modes increased patronage

• These conditions are more likely to have occurred naturally had the trams been retained

• More rigorous modelling could characterise the transport-related benefits with greater detail and precision